Maybe lions are too lazy to support neodarwinian idea of proliferation of the strogest. They almost oversleep all day doing nothing. They are not so vivid as rats and mice that are far better example of "struggle for life".

Medieval kings put the lion on their coat of arms. They considered him to be the king of animals. It's a pity nobody could instruct them at those dark times about population genetic. Neodarwinian would have had a rat on his coat of arms. Rats are best adapted to various niches and win "struggle for life" everywhere. Lion couldn't survive a day in the sewage conduit.

--------------I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

If you go back to the first message on this thread, the questions are:

1) do you believe common descent is correct?2) how old is the earth?

You answered the second. Since being 'on-topic' is so important for you, answer the first now:

do you believe common descent between apes and humans is true?

Bet you're still afraid to answer.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

The thread about aposematism has been closed. Anyway according to my "cosmology" coloration of animals presents only some kind of species self-representation. Especially so called "warning coloration" of insects do not give them often any survival advantage. I am discussing the problem of wasps coloration at EvC forum, so if you would like to know more about my arguments go there. (I dare say there is really discussion at EvC, no one uses denigration there instead arguments (idiot, Croatian old teacher, etc...) except one person, who's access has been suspended because of it.)

Of course I am ready to discuss any insect aposematism here ( also butterflies etc...). But because the topic and my person seems to be not wellcome here I would not start it again. Unless somebody ask me and admin would allow it.

Thank you.

--------------I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Marty, why don't you just lay out your theory instead? It shouldn't be that hard, right? You've got one, right? That would make Lou and everyone else happy, no?

Your 'discussions' are nothing more than hand-waving and question begging.

I for one would love a thread where we could actually talk about your ideas instead of how wrong you (in simple ignorant error) believe the ideas of others to be.

But I think the reason why we don't is that you don't have any ideas. None, except some magical cosmic notion of progress and just enough sense to fall on your own sword. It is entertaining to watch you fake the English-as-a-second-language gambit then drop the ball and you use some american slang. love it. mean it.

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

Reading the book "Evolutionary biology" by Jaroslav Flegr Charles Uni Prague, Department of Parasitology, I hit on the name and quotation of some thoughts of professor John Davison. Flegr has written that precursors of sexual cells migrate into gonads from different places. It means that sexual cells in different groups of Vertebrata are non-homologous (page 240).

John Davison's Manifesto and his ""Evolution as self limiting process" are listed in the Literature of this 500 hundered pages book published by Academy of Science of Czech republic.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Until then, talking to you will sadly remain much like talking to that computer - circles and circles without end or hope of substance but minus the fun.

I suppose it is only neodarwinian theories which we are discussing here.

But I think there is a created world which has it's own rules. Those rules inevitable directed evolution towards man. It is old concept of great men of the Rennaissance (like Giordano Bruno) who used for it the expression anima mundi . The same notion is vivid in Orthodox Russian and Greek church under the name Sophia .These theories cannot be proved/disproved with limited scope of the science.

The theory discussed here is neodarwinism. We can use limited knowledes of science to discuss it if it is true or not. So keep the topic please: is neodarwinism valid explanation of the secret of evolution?

--------------I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Until then, talking to you will sadly remain much like talking to that computer - circles and circles without end or hope of substance but minus the fun.

I suppose it is only neodarwinian theories which we are discussing here.

But I think there is a created world which has it's own rules. Those rules inevitable directed evolution towards man. It is old concept of great men of the Rennaissance (like Giordano Bruno) who used for it the expression anima mundi . The same notion is vivid in Orthodox Russian and Greek church under the name Sophia .These theories cannot be proved/disproved with limited scope of the science.

The theory discussed here is neodarwinism. We can use limited knowledes of science to discuss it if it is true or not. So keep the topic please: is neodarwinism valid explanation of the secret of evolution?

Keep to the topic?

Go back to page 1, Marty. Here is the 'topic'. You never answered question one. Care to try now?

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Human evolution is speeding up. Around 40,000 years ago our genes began to evolve much faster. By 5000 years ago they were evolving 30 to 40 times faster than ever before and it seems highly likely that we continue to evolve at this super speed today.

Our population explosion and rapidly changing lifestyles seem to be the drivers of this acceleration, the discovery of which contradicts the widely held notion that our technological and medical advances have removed most of the selection pressures acting upon us.

This stunning insight into humanity's development comes from a wide-ranging study of human gene variants gathered by the international HapMap project. Investigators led by John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, studied 3.9 million simple differences in DNA called single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs, pronounced "snips") from 270 individuals, including people of Han Chinese, Japanese, Yoruban and northern European extraction.

More hereThe data was from a wide-ranging study of human gene variants. The data is there. It's not agreeing with you.

Game over VMartin.

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

I suppose it is only neodarwinian theories which we are discussing here.

No, Marty. We'd like to discuss your theory. Which part of that is too difficult for you to understand? You are not only permitted, but you are encouraged to discuss your theory. Can you not read the thread title?

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,12:11)

But I think there is a created world which has it's own rules.

Ok, very good. We've got a start here, because you are freaking finally saying something more than "Darwin Sucks -Dohn A. Javison".

Now, you've asserted that the created world in your theory has some rules. Could you please enumerate them, elaborate on the ones that might be unclear, and provide some evidence that these rules exist? Then we can move on to more complicated things.

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,12:11)

Those rules inevitable directed evolution towards man.

No, no, no. You've skipped a few steps. Go back to my previous comment. Please tell us what rules you believe exist, and provide some evidence of that.

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,12:11)

It is old concept of great men of the Rennaissance (like Giordano Bruno) who used for it the expression anima mundi . The same notion is vivid in Orthodox Russian and Greek church under the name Sophia .These theories cannot be proved/disproved with limited scope of the science.

I'm sure you'll be happy to elucidate the relevance of these statements. After all, Rennaissance [sic] men also held to the concept of predicting the future by smoking weed and drinking a bowl of cow piss (or whatever). That also has little to do with how man came to be (biologically speaking).

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,12:11)

The theory discussed here is neodarwinism. We can use limited knowledes of science to discuss it if it is true or not. So keep the topic please: is neodarwinism valid explanation of the secret of evolution?

No, no, no. Again, read the title of this thread. This thread is about "VMartin's Cosmology". So keep to the topic please.

Stop evading and give us some specifics of your kick-ass scientific theory that will overthrow the very foundations of modern biology.

Edited by Lou FCD on Dec. 14 2007,12:40

--------------Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecatedI think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

What rules?Who made them?How are they directing evolution?Why are they directing evolution towards "man".

And towards the Highest. Spiritual forces. Beyond scope of the science. Would you like to use science to explainsupernatural?

The evolution is over. We have discussed it already. No new mammalian Order last 30 millions years (except Pinnipedia). Diversification of mammals is decreasing. See research of fossils in John Day fossil Beds done also by neodarwian scientist Gingerich.

The period of 39 to 20 million years ago (John Day Formation) seems to harbor the greatest diversity inknown fossils of families and genera. Current diversityof families and genera of the basin assessmentarea does not match that of this time period,and would even be far less if only current-daymid- and large-bodied mammals (to match thosetaxa more likely to persist and be discovered inthe fossil record) of sagebrush-steppe communitieswere considered.

After all, Rennaissance [sic] men also held to the concept of predicting the future by smoking weed and drinking a bowl of cow piss (or whatever). That also has little to do with how man came to be.

Do you mean Copernikus, Kepler and Bruno? That's a brand new theory. You should introduce it refuting Frances Yates conception of theories of those men. She as a prominent historian studied philosophy of those men all her life.

--------------I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

After all, Rennaissance [sic] men also held to the concept of predicting the future by smoking weed and drinking a bowl of cow piss (or whatever). That also has little to do with how man came to be.

Do you mean Copernikus, Kepler and Bruno? That's a brand new theory. You should introduce it refuting Frances Yates conception of theories of those men. She as a prominent historian studied philosophy of those men all her life.

It was more of a general statement, V. The point was that the idea that a given concept is valid just because Rennaissance [sic] men believed it is a rather silly invocation of an appeal to authority.

Now, back to your theory...

--------------Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecatedI think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

It was more of a general statement, V. The point was that the idea that a given concept is valid just because Rennaissance [sic] men believed it is a rather silly invocation of an appeal to authority.

Now, back to your theory...

Why don't you splash this thread away? You are the master. Go ahead darling.

Uf, we'd much rather hear your alternative to the Darwinismus. I hope your interest in telling us will arouse.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Why don't you splash this thread away? You are the master. Go ahead darling.

The theory, V. Get to the theory.

And then you will splash it away. You are the Lord of atheistic keys here.

What religion are you, Marty?

Are you one of those religions that says that common descent is false?

C'mon Marty. The alternative to the atheist Darwinismus please be giving to us now.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

The thread about aposematism has been closed by new administrator LOU who likes only topic backing up neodarwinian points of view (contrary to the administration rules of more liberal Elsberry).

The problem of bright coloration of catterpilars was a puzzle for Darwin (obviously not for LOU). As far as I know Darwin insisted on natural selection even if in this case it doesn't work. He said somethig like " I will believe in Natural selection even if in this case (bright coloration of caterpillars) it is not valid explanation of the phenomena". (According antidarwinian evolutionist Heikertiner.)I cannot find out his letters about the topic which Darwin discussed with Wallace and Bates. Why is this one unavailable - and especially the one with his credo about natural selection as the source of bright coloration of caterpillars?

The thread about aposematism has been closed by new administrator LOU who likes only topic backing up neodarwinian points of view (contrary to the administration rules of more liberal Elsberry).

The problem of bright coloration of catterpilars was a puzzle for Darwin (obviously not for LOU). As far as I know Darwin insisted on natural selection even if in this case it doesn't work. He said somethig like " I will believe in Natural selection even if in this case (bright coloration of caterpillars) it is not valid explanation of the phenomena". (According antidarwinian evolutionist Heikertiner.)I cannot find out his letters about the topic which Darwin discussed with Wallace and Bates. Why is this one unavailable - and especially the one with his credo about natural selection as the source of bright coloration of caterpillars?

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

The thread about aposematism has been closed by new administrator LOU who likes only topic backing up neodarwinian points of view (contrary to the administration rules of more liberal Elsberry).

The problem of bright coloration of catterpilars was a puzzle for Darwin (obviously not for LOU). As far as I know Darwin insisted on natural selection even if in this case it doesn't work. He said somethig like " I will believe in Natural selection even if in this case (bright coloration of caterpillars) it is not valid explanation of the phenomena". (According antidarwinian evolutionist Heikertiner.)I cannot find out his letters about the topic which Darwin discussed with Wallace and Bates. Why is this one unavailable - and especially the one with his credo about natural selection as the source of bright coloration of caterpillars?

V, I've practically been BEGGING you to advance a hypothesis, ANY hypothesis, and support it to replace modern evolutionary theory.

You have repeatedly and exclusively declined in favor of "Darwin Sucks".

To accuse me of censoring your theory when you refuse to advance one is disingenuous and rather infantile.

Please take this opportunity to advance your replacement hypothesis and attempt to support it. If you can do that, you may very well have the paradigm shifting theory that the Intelligent Design movement has been craving since its stillbirth from creationism.

--------------Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecatedI think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

The point is not my hypothesis. It cannot be proved or disproved. I have already written down about it.

The point is that neodarwinian view is wrong on my opinion. That's my "cosmology". I have introduced many arguments why it is wrong. I would like to discuss it. If my arguments are wrong I would like to know why.

Thank you.

--------------I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

The point is not my hypothesis. It cannot be proved or disproved. I have already written down about it.

The point is that neodarwinian view is wrong on my opinion. That's my "cosmology". I have introduced many arguments why it is wrong. I would like to discuss it. If my arguments are wrong I would like to know why.

Thank you.

Your 'cosmology' is that something other people think is wrong?

Wow, that's pathetic.

So, if the Darwinismus is wrong, what's the real cause of variation in nature? Could you splash us an answer?

Uh, you DO believe that there is variation in nature, right?

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

The point is not my hypothesis. It cannot be proved or disproved. I have already written down about it.

The point is that neodarwinian view is wrong on my opinion. That's my "cosmology". I have introduced many arguments why it is wrong. I would like to discuss it. If my arguments are wrong I would like to know why.

Thank you.

Fair enough. So your "Cosmology" consists of "modern evolutionary theory is wrong and science should just stop"?

Is that correct? If the correct or accurate evaluation of the universe around us cannot be proven or disproven, then what would be the point of science?

To extend this thought, why do you consider it important to fight against science, if it's fruitless and pointless anyway?

--------------Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecatedI think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound